Share this story

One day after a large protest of his plan to gut net neutrality rules, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai was asked if the number of pro-net neutrality comments submitted to the FCC might cause a change in course.

In response, Pai maintained his stance that the number of comments is not as important as the content of those comments.

Further Reading

"As I said previously, the raw number is not as important as the substantive comments that are in the record," Pai said at a press conference following yesterday's monthly FCC meeting.

Pai was answering a question posed by reporter Lynn Stanton of TRDaily. Stanton asked, "shouldn't the number of consumers who feel they are detrimentally affected be a factor in a cost-benefit analysis of what you do?" Pai did not give a definitive yes-or-no answer to the question of whether the number of pro-net neutrality comments would make any difference in his decision.

Pai previously addressed specific comments on one occasion, when he praised the "exceptionally important contribution to the debate" made by a group of 19 nonprofit municipal-broadband providers who oppose the current net neutrality rules. But Pai made no comment later on when 30 small ISPs urged him to preserve the rules.

The FCC is taking comments on Pai's plan to overturn the classification of broadband providers as common carriers and to repeal or replace the net neutrality rules that forbid blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. On Wednesday, advocacy groups held an "Internet-wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality," which attracted support from website operators both large and small.

Two million new FCC comments

Advocacy group Fight for the Future said the protest resulted in more than five million e-mails and 124,000 phone calls to Congress and more than two million comments to the FCC. Participating websites directed visitors to forms that they could use to submit pre-written comments. There are now more than 7.6 million public comments on Pai's "Restoring Internet Freedom" proceeding.

The deadline for filing initial comments is July 17, and reply comments are due August 16. The FCC will make a final decision sometime after that, but Pai said he hasn't decided on timing yet.

"We want to weigh all comments and make sure that we take a full view of the record, and again make the appropriate judgment based on those facts and the law as it applies," Pai said yesterday.

When net neutrality rules were implemented in 2015, Pai claimed that the agency was "using legal authority the FCC doesn't have." But the entire net neutrality order was upheld last year by a federal appeals court, which rejected legal challenges from broadband lobby groups.

Pai's intentions are clear. When he announced his plan to overturn the 2015 net neutrality order, he said, "Make no mistake about it: this is a fight that we intend to wage and it is a fight that we are going to win."

Courts have generally allowed the FCC to classify broadband however it wishes, a fact that might help Pai in his battle. Still, net neutrality advocates say that comments could be important when Pai's FCC has to defend its decision in court.

Promoted Comments

This, my friends, exemplifies the failure of logic known as "Cherry Picking."

Let's take the arguments we do like and throw away all the ones we don't, then claim that we're right, because these dozens of people support us. Never mind the millions that think we're completely wrong.

I completely fail to understand how a government agency, in a democracy, thinks that the sheer volume of opposition to his plans doesn't matter. (Don't start with the "this isn't a real Democracy comments. I don't need a Civics lesson.)

The public has sent a very clear mandate to the FCC - twice now - that Net Neutrality is something the public wants and needs; when millions of people oppose him and only a few dozen agree with him, that doesn't seem like a very strong position.

I'm really hoping that Congress takes note of this and does something... but I'm not putting any faith in them at this point - mostly because Acts of Congress are designed to be slow and deliberate, and this process is pretty much the opposite.

In response, Pai maintained his stance that the number of comments is not as important as the content of those comments.

Quote:

Pai previously addressed specific comments on one occasion, when he praised the "exceptionally important contribution to the debate" made by a group of 19 nonprofit municipal-broadband providers who oppose the current net neutrality rules.

Should we feel relatively confident, then, that the "content" and "contribution" he is referring to are several large stacks of hundred dollar bills?

I am seriously finding it difficult to believe he is referring to anything other...

Now the US government is openly telling its citizens that their opinion does not matter. Before at least they'll find an excuse, now they don't even try because they know the sheeples will just take it like they are told.

Why did people think anything different was going to happen. He stated when Trump was elected that he was going to undo Net Neutrality. He didn't say he was going to consider it he said this is going to happen.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure every single one of the 7.6 Million comments could say don't undo this and he wouldn't care. The only small sliver is that I believe he needs to explain why the comments don't matter when the change is challenged.

This, my friends, exemplifies the failure of logic known as "Cherry Picking."

Let's take the arguments we do like and throw away all the ones we don't, then claim that we're right, because these dozens of people support us. Never mind the millions that think we're completely wrong.

I completely fail to understand how a government agency, in a democracy, thinks that the sheer volume of opposition to his plans doesn't matter. (Don't start with the "this isn't a real Democracy comments. I don't need a Civics lesson.)

The public has sent a very clear mandate to the FCC - twice now - that Net Neutrality is something the public wants and needs; when millions of people oppose him and only a few dozen agree with him, that doesn't seem like a very strong position.

I'm really hoping that Congress takes note of this and does something... but I'm not putting any faith in them at this point - mostly because Acts of Congress are designed to be slow and deliberate, and this process is pretty much the opposite.

The sad thing is that he probably doesn't make THAT much from his kick backs, like many members of the House and Senate. For some it's estimated to be only a few thousand if it's comparable to their corporate donation totals.

For him it's probably a few sweet real estate deals, but even then, he has to spend his own money to take advantage of it and he's not making that much money from his job (I'm guessing $120K which is bottom level of the top tier in D.C. money). And, he's probably working on some "Vice Chairman" corporate position after this gig which would net $200k minimum with, literally, 5 hour work weeks if you don't count sporting events, golf tours, 5 star conferences, shows, etc. all for a corporation's clients. Vice Chairman positions are the "payoff" positions. Never go full Chairman.

But even then, if he wants real MONEY he'd write a book, and go on a speaking tour exposing the corporate/government grift with details you can only get from the inside. He'd be performing a public duty, improving society, and would easily make 10x's whatever he's ever being promised/given behind closed doors. Which makes me ask, Why be such a prick and screw the rest of us over?

Why did people think anything different was going to happen. He stated when Trump was elected that he was going to undo Net Neutrality. He didn't say he was going to consider it he said this is going to happen.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure every single one of the 7.6 Million comments could say don't undo this and he wouldn't care. The only small sliver is that I believe he needs to explain why the comments don't matter when the change is challenged.

He has to explain why they don't matter, but only in the shallowest possible sense. He doesn't need to provide a compelling explanation at all, he can pretty much get away with the usual bullshit line of "the impact on investment is too high according to this one study we found".

If we always listened to the vocal people, then we'd always be listening to the vocal minority - that's hardly good policy. So I'm fine with this, generally speaking. But I do like net neutrality.

Pai's not arguing that we shouldn't give more weight to more vocal people because they might be the minority, though. He's arguing that the position of the majority does not count when weighed against the "substantive" comments made by a minority, where the definition of "substantive" in this case is completely arbitrary.

What "We The People" say in net neutrality comments not that important, Pai says

FTFY

Yup, it's obvious that we're in a post "government of the people, by the people, for the people" era.

well corporations are made out of people too you know!

edit: a word

Yes, and those people, if they are citizens, should have a voice in deciding how the country is governed. That an institution itself should be given ANY of the rights and voice of a citizen, much less the super-status they enjoy today, is an existential threat to our democracy. I'm pro-business and pro-capitalist but how we are handling corporations in our country today is very disturbing to me. Alright, stepping off my soapbox...

What "We The People" say in net neutrality comments not that important, Pai says

FTFY

Yup, it's obvious that we're in a post "government of the people, by the people, for the people" era.

well corporations are made out of people too you know!

edit: a word

Corporations are becoming a 'very special' class of 'people' who almost never go to jail no matter how egregious the crime. ( Ever since the 2006 Enron cases — the US Justice Department no longer goes after prison terms, and only asks for fines now. Justice for who? 😳 ).

Ajit Pai:"Well, I favor a free and open Internet, as I think most consumers do.

My concern is with the particular regulations that the FCC adopted two years ago. They are what is called Title II regulations developed in the 1930s to regulate the Ma Bell telephone monopoly.

And my concern is that, by imposing those heavy-handed economic regulations on Internet service providers big and small, we could end up disincentivizing companies from wanting to build out Internet access to a lot of parts of the country, in low-income, urban and rural areas, for example."

The sad thing is that he probably doesn't make THAT much from his kick backs, like many members of the House and Senate. For some it's estimated to be only a few thousand if it's comparable to their corporate donation totals.

For him it's probably a few sweet real estate deals, but even then, he has to spend his own money to take advantage of it and he's not making that much money from his job (I'm guessing $120K which is bottom level of the top tier in D.C. money).

If he wants MONEY he'd write a book, and go on a speaking tour exposing the corporate/government grift with details you can only get from the inside. He'd be performing a public duty, improving society, and would easily make 10x's whatever he's being promised/given behind closed doors.

A comfortable career as a lobbyist for the industry that's guaranteed to him for effectively the rest of his life is probably worth substantially more than even a significant pay-off, and that's likely what he's working towards. That's generally how FCC chairmanship works.

Dem or Republican I think everyone wants net neutrality and this might get people to reconsider their politics

Unfortunately, I think a lot of average people either:A: Don't fully understand Net Neutrality.B: Don't Care.For those people, I don't think they'll ever see cause and effect. They won't see this as something they could have prevented. And somehow, they'll find a way to convince themselves that the [INSERT OPPOSING POLITICAL PARTY HERE] let this happen. Blame first, Solution never.

"I mean, did you see all those comments that were slight variations of the same anti-net neutrality statements, with names of people who didn't actually submit those comments? That must have taken some time and work to do that. You have to respect the skills of a person who's willing to spoof thousands of comments, and weigh them more than the millions of people who wrote opposing comments. It's just common courtesy."

In other news, anyone who actually thought that providing an overwhelming response in opposition to reversing the net neutrality rules was being pretty naive. Pai is going through with this, even if there was some sort of national referendum, and 90% said to keep the rules as they are.

Of course he's not concerned about pro-neutrality comments. Why should he be, when all that is needed is for him to completely ignore those comments until he gets what he wants?

Have you demonstrated to him, or to "the current administration", any REAL consequences that will result from continuing to ignore you? No. You comment, and then 1 nanosecond later you forget about it. *poof*, your job is done, you are resolved of responsibility. Oh, maybe there will be a funny skit or two on SNL, and The Daily Show, and Colbert will surely have a go at it too. Then what? Nothing.

This is the thought process of "protest" in the modern age. This is exactly why flea brains like trump are elected president (well that, and a lot of help from the Russians). All they have to do is ignore you, since you have proven that you can't be bothered to take any real action against them.

The real fight that everyone is losing sight of - This should be regulated by Congress and not privy to the whims of appointed councils.

I fully agree with you that this should be something that should be an actual law and not the whims of the elected party, however I still think we should keep what we have now until they get around to making an actual law about this.